Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: copyright attribution clarifications

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 8:09 PM Sarah White <kuzetsa@××××××××××.ovh> wrote:
>
> On 11/24/18 6:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >
> > I don't see anything in the GPL-2 that would prevent us from removing
> > redundant copyright notices.
> >
>
> The better question - why should things be copyrighted,
> and then made available under a FOSS/Libre license, and
> why is this different than public domain without any
> copyright protection of any kind?

Nobody is talking about anybody giving up copyright protection.  We're
just talking about using one valid form of a copyright notice vs
another valid form of a copyright notice.  Giving notice is not the
same as owning copyright.

> Does gentoo have a legal team or policy in place to protect
> copyleft-type legal interests against license infringers?

That isn't relevant unless Gentoo owns the copyright, or an FLA-like
interest in it.

> I'm not aware of anyone in this thread (or related ones)
> who is claiming gentoo should have copyright assignment

Nope.  This has nothing to do with copyright assignment.  The new GLEP
does not transfer copyrights to Gentoo.

> and a gentoo copyright notice will have teeth behind it,

The "Gentoo Authors" copyright notice will have just as much teeth
behind it as putting "Sony" in the notice, if Sony owns the copyright.
Sony can still sue infringers.  You don't have to be named in the
copyright notice to sue for copyright infringement, and you gain all
the protections of giving notice even if you aren't the one named in
the notice.

> I believe if sony is committing to release something under
> a FOSS/Libre/copyleft-type license, they should be able
> to thow their own legal team behind it.

And they can with the GLEP as it exists now.  They receive no legal
benefits at all by being named in the copyright notice, and lose no
benefits by not being named in the notice, as long as the notice is
valid.

-- 
Rich